Bill of Rights

Press, 13 March 1986, Page 20

Bill of Rights

Sir,—l wish to correct some misconceptions evident in B. F. Preston’s letter (“The Press,” February 19). First, B. F. Preston says that a bill of rights is about “rights granted by the State.” This is not so. Rather, a bill of rights would protect basic rights and freedoms from interference by the Government. It would do this by limiting the powers of the State. Second, B. F. Preston contrasts the present system — “freedom of the individual through common law” — with that under a bill of rights — rights “interpreted by State-ap-pointed judges.” However, this comparison does not take us very far. The phrase “the common law” is just another way of describing “judge-made” law. Finally, B. F. Preston cites the case of Finnigan and Anor v. New Zealand Rugby Football Union Inc. and Ors as exemplifying a judicial interpretation of rights. But that case was not about rights. Rather, it considered whether the proposed action of the rugby union was in accord with its objects as an incorporated society.—Yours, etc GEOFFREY PALMER, Minister of Justice. March 10, 1986.